Share This Story!

Editorial: Who needs the civics lesson: Ayatollahs or GOP senators?

To hear Iowa's U.S. senators tell it, the letter they and 45 other Senate Republicans sent to the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran was nothing more than a well-intentioned lesson on the separation of powers.

Posted!

Join the Conversation

Comments

Welcome to our new and improved comments, which are for subscribers only.
This is a test to see whether we can improve the experience for you.
You do not need a Facebook profile to participate.

You will need to register before adding a comment.
Typed comments will be lost if you are not logged in.

Please be polite.
It's OK to disagree with someone's ideas, but personal attacks, insults, threats, hate speech, advocating violence and other violations can result in a ban.
If you see comments in violation of our community guidelines, please report them.

OPINION

Editorial: Who needs the civics lesson: Ayatollahs or GOP senators?

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark. The man leading the effort to torpedo an agreement with Iran is a rookie Republican senator, an Army veteran with a Harvard law degree and a long record of tough rhetoric against President Barack Obama’s foreign policy. Cotton’s previous forays into foreign policy raised as many hackles as the letter he authored this week lecturing Iran’s leaders on American democracy. This time, 46 fellow Republicans signed onto the document.(Photo: Danny Johnston/AP)

To hear Iowa's U.S. senators tell it, the letter they and 45 other Senate Republicans sent to the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran was nothing more than a well-intentioned lesson on the separation of powers.

In reality, the letter was an orchestrated attempt to undermine U.S. efforts to negotiate an agreement with Iran on a critically important issue: the use of nuclear materials by one of America's most volatile foreign adversaries.

The letter cautioned Iran that the Senate "will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time."

Ernst, a lieutenant colonel in the Iowa National Guard, says she and her GOP colleagues merely wanted to let Iran know that any agreement they might reach with her commander in chief "is not binding." As she puts it, "We could have another president that enters the office in a few years and decides he does not want to follow what was agreed to by President Obama."

Grassley, too, is sticking to his guns, calling any deal reached by Obama "just an agreement" that could easily be undone by a new president.

Their argument seems to be, "What's the harm in stating the obvious?"

For the answer to that question, listen to retired Major Gen. Paul D. Eaton, who spoke to the Washington Post about the letter, which he described as "extremely dangerous, because undermining our diplomatic efforts at this moment brings us another step closer to a very costly and perilous war with Iran." Eaton said he doesn't believe the 47 senators "were trying to sell out America," but he adds, "I do believe they defied the chain of command in what could be construed as an illegal act."

Republican members of Congress who oppose the president's efforts can, and should, voice their opposition on the floor of the House and Senate and elsewhere. But they should never directly engage with foreign leaders in this manner.

When they do, they not only undermine the efforts of one president's negotiations with one foreign country, they damage America's credibility on the world stage and they undercut all future efforts, by all future presidents, to conduct foreign relations.